Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for regulating America's nuclear power industry, a responsibility that includes overseeing the nuclear industry's security and safety measures. According to an NRC Office of Inspector General (OIG) document POGO obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, questions have been raised about the methodology NRC used for assessing the impact of large commercial aircraft on new nuclear power plants:

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), initiated this investigation based on a proactive initiative to identify instances where it appeared that NRC might not have followed agency processes regarding significant regulatory matters. At the time this investigation was initiated, the NRC was considering whether the Riera methodology was an appropriate tool for new reactor applicants to use to assess the potential effects of the impact of a large commercial aircraft on new nuclear power plants. OIG reviewed whether or not the NRC followed established procedures and processes regarding the appropriateness of using the Riera methodology for aircraft impact analysis.

Additionally, during the investigation, OIG identified information that suggested NRC may have inappropriately released information to licensees by providing them with data that could be reverse engineered using calculations from the Riera methodology to reveal classified information. Therefore, OIG reviewed whether or not the NRC appropriately handled Riera-related information in accordance with the NRC information security process.

Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

By MICHAEL SMALLBERG

In the months leading up to the 2008 financial meltdown, it appears that some employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were able to make time for a variety of questionable extracurricular activities, as described in a batch of previously unposted investigative reports by the SEC's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

These investigations have been disclosed in the OIG's semiannual reports to Congress, but the original reports are nowhere to be found on the SEC or OIG's websites. POGO has created a resource page with the previously unposted reports obtained by us and others through FOIA, often in a highly redacted form.

The reports we're posting today describe behavior that took place mostly in 2007 and 2008, at a time when financial markets were heading into crisis mode. Here's how some SEC employees decided to pass the time, according to the OIG (parental discretion is advised):

During a 30-day period in 2007, a different staff accountant in the New York office received 16,033 access denials for websites that were classified as being pornographic. There were also an astonishing 145,543 instances during this same period when he was able to access websites classified as "Art/Culture," some of which contained “sexually-suggestive and fetish images and a few sexually-explicit images." In addition, a hard drive recovered from his laptop computer contained 904 images that were "similar in nature to those found in the Art/Culture websites recorded in the log." A third employee in the New York office received hundreds of denials over 40 days in 2007 for attempting to access pornographic websites.

Jul 15, 2011

Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

In a nutshell: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspectors, while doing their work according to NRC requirements, were not aware of a “significant problem” with a “significant safety system” at a nuclear power plant in Illinois, according to an NRC Office of Inspector General (NRC OIG) investigative report.

The NRC OIG report said NRC inspectors are typically “dependent” on nuclear plant operators to “identify and correct problems.” At the Illinois plant, managers “did not recall informing the [NRC] inspectors about the problems leading up to” the leak of a water system that fed cooling water to essential emergency equipment, according to the report.

Though no radioactive material was released, safety experts say that if enough pipes had ruptured during a reactor accident, the result could easily have been a nuclear catastrophe at a plant just 100 miles west of Chicago.

The incident the September 2010 NRC OIG report zeroes in on occurred on October 19, 2007, at the Byron Nuclear Station in northern Illinois, owned and operated by Exelon. The Byron incident led to a 12-day shutdown of the two nuclear reactors at the Byron station. The episode “illustrates some of the challenges of this dependency” on nuclear power companies, according to the NRC OIG report.

“The only difference between Byron and Fukushima is luck,” Dave Lochbaum of the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists told The New York Times. Lochbaum was referring to the release of radiation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan earlier this year. The Times opened a major investigative article on NRC coziness with the nuclear industry with the Byron incident.

Jul 08, 2011

Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

By NICK SCHWELLENBACH

In a nutshell: The Air Force spent $94.3 million on eight contracts "that constituted work so closely supporting inherently governmental functions as to create significant risk that the contractors could influence or direct decisions that are not in the best interest of the Air Force," according to the report. This work included developing and recommending policy changes, governing, strategic planning for the Air Force, creating and submitting budget requests, and evaluating other contractors cost proposals. The three Air Force locations that contracted out this work were Hanscom ($71.7 million), Los Angeles ($14.7 million), and Wright-Patterson ($8 million).

In other words, contractors were doing things that we expect government employees, and only government employees, to do. Thus, “the Air Force increased its risk for potential loss of government control over and accountability for mission-related policy and programs.”

Jul 01, 2011

Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

By JAKE WIENS

Document agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, on behalf of the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE).

Document number: IC 500

Document date: August 20, 2006

In a nutshell: The controversial tenure of Robert “Moose” Cobb, the former Inspector General (IG) at NASA, ended in 2009 amidst serious pressure from Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Charles Grassley (R-IA). The Senators cited “his ‘ineffective audit record, stalled investigations, whistleblower retaliation, and improper social relationships with the NASA officials whose work he was tasked with overseeing,’” as justification for their commitment to having him removed.

Jun 24, 2011

This week's release: Report of Investigation into Senior Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (DOIG) Officials, conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) OIG.

Agency: Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)

Document Date: June 9, 2008

Four members of Congress from Texas accused senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) of lying to Congress regarding a DHS OIG investigation involving a shooting by U.S. Border Patrol agents. The members of Congress also said that the DHS OIG deliberately delayed its report on the shooting. The U.S. Department of Agriculture IG (USDA IG) investigated these claims on behalf of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (known as the PCIE; later renamed the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, or CIGIE).

The USDA IG found that the senior DHS OIG officials “did not intentionally provide misleading information to members of Congress and that the statements made at the briefing were misinterpreted and/or taken out of context.” Also, the “DHS-OIG did not intentionally withhold or delay the release of the Report of Investigation (ROI) in this matter.”

The Border Patrol agents were Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They were convicted and sentenced for the shooting of a Mexican drug dealer [Editor's note: this sentenced was corrected]. Their sentences were commuted by President George W. Bush.

The case of the two border agents was a cause célèbre among conservatives. The four members of Texas alleging wrongdoing by the DHS OIG were Reps. Michael McCaul, Ted Poe, Kenny Marchant, and John Culberson.

Nick Schwellenbach is POGO's Director of Investigations.

Correction: The drug dealer was shot, but not killed. In the original version of this post, we said the drug dealer was killed. We regret the error.

Jun 17, 2011

By MICHAEL SMALLBERG

This week's release: Statements filed between 2006 and 2010 by former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees who went to work for Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and returned to appear before the SEC on behalf of Davis Polk's clients within two years of leaving government.

Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Document Dates: 2006-2010

Earlier this month, the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell announced it had hired Susan Ervin—a former senior adviser at the SEC who worked on derivatives issues and helped to draft Dodd-Frank regulations—to help "guide our clients through the maze of futures, commodities and new swaps regulatory requirements." Ervin told The Am Law Daily she felt like her "entire career has pointed toward this."

In recent years, Davis Polk has been particularly effective at recruiting former government employees who worked on financial regulatory matters while in office. A recent article in Investment News described Davis Polk as the "go-to law firm" for analyzing the slew of regulations that have been introduced to implement Dodd-Frank. In the article, Annette Nazareth—a Davis Polk partner and former SEC Commissioner—stated that the firm is "not trying to further a point of view, nor are we interested in lobbying. The insights we bring to Dodd-Frank are based on the experience each partner adds to the process."

To be sure, Davis Polk's lobbying-related income has steadily declined in recent years. But that hardly means the firm is a disinterested party when it comes to the financial crisis and Dodd-Frank rulemaking. In fact, a 2008 memo sent around by Davis Polk's director of business management boasted that the firm "has been at the center" of the key events surrounding the financial crisis, providing counsel to Citigroup, Freddie Mac, and the Treasury Department, among other high-profile clients.

By NICK SCHWELLENBACH

An article in the latest issue of The New Yorker details the perils many "third country nationals"--mostly South Asians and Africans--face when working for U.S. government-funded contractors and subcontractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article tells the tale largely through the experiences of two Fijian women--Lydia and Vinnie--who worked for a foreign-owned subcontractor for the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). Under the auspices of AAFES, commercial stores, hair salons, movie theaters and other operations are conducted on military bases.

According to The New Yorker article, the Fijian women faced an array of abuses, such as being lured to Iraq under false pretenses (they believed they were going elsewhere in the Middle East and would be paid far more than they actually were), onerous work hours (12 hours a day for 7 days a week), oppressive contractual terms signed under duress, and, for one of the women, sexual assault by one of her supervisors.

May 20, 2011

By MICHAEL SMALLBERG

This week's release: Statements filed between 2006 and 2010 by former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees who went to work for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP (WilmerHale) and returned to appear before the SEC on behalf of WilmerHale's clients within two years of leaving government.

May 13, 2011

[By Bryan Rahija]

This week's release: Nearly 800 post-employment statements notifying the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of former employees' intent to represent an outside client before the Commission within two years of their departure from the agency.

Agency: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Document Dates: 2006 - 2010.

Hopefully you're well aware now that this cache of documents serves as the underlying data behind POGO's new SEC Revolving Door Database.

Here's a breakdown of what's in the statements, as outlined in our newest report:

SEC regulations require former employees to file statements with the SEC’s Office of the Secretary within two years of leaving the Commission if they are:

[e]mployed or retained as the representative of any person outside the Government in any matter in which it is contemplated that he or she will appear before the Commission, or communicate with the Commission or its employees.[20]

The statement must be filed within ten days of the former employee being hired or retained to appear before the SEC on behalf of an outside party,[21] and it must include:

“a description of the contemplated representation”;

a statement affirming that the former employee did not participate personally and substantially in or have official responsibility for the matter in which they now expect to appear before the Commission;

A single former employee must often file multiple statements to cover all the different issues on which they expect to appear before the Commission representing outside parties.

Taken as a whole, the documents raise significant questions about the integrity of SEC enforcement and oversight. But the documents also raise questions about secrecy at the Commission. As noted on our methodology page, the SEC withheld a significant portion of the data that we requested:

May 06, 2011

By Nick Schwellenbach

Every Friday, POGO will strive to make one document available that we or others have obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), especially documents that have not previously been posted online. Some of these documents will be more important than others, some may only be of historical interest— although relevance is in the eye of the beholder. POGO is doing this to highlight the importance of open government and FOIA throughout the year.

In a nutshell: An initial audit by the USAAA said the Army could save money in procuring combat role players at training centers and made recommendations. This followup audit focused on the implementation of one of the recommendations. While “the original audit estimated potential monetary benefits of $4.1 million” according to the followup audit, “the Army realized monetary benefits of $2.7 million by not paying field stipend fees for most of FY 08 and for all of FY 09.” It explains that “the actual savings was less because the Army paid the stipend for the first two training rotations in FY 08 and because the actual fees paid were less than the estimate.”

Commentary: As we pointed out in our inaugural FOIA Friday post, the USAAA is just one of several Pentagon agencies with key oversight responsibilities that does not proactively publish its reports online. That's too bad, as reports like this one could be a useful resource to the public.

Apr 29, 2011

By Nick Schwellenbach

This week’s document: A spreadsheet of claims filed against the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of which relate to medical malpractice.

Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946 allowed private citizens to sue the federal government for certain kinds of torts, including “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” With roots also in 1946, the Veterans Health Administration, part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, is “the nation’s largest integrated health care system,” according to the Congressional Research Service. For fiscal year 2011, the VA estimates it will treat some 6.1 million patients.

What do you get when there’s a massive healthcare system with a law allowing claims and lawsuits for wrongful injury or death? Lots of claims of malpractice. (Important note: A recent and well-respected book makes a compelling case that the VA healthcare system is better than most of the rest of the U.S. healthcare system—but even the best healthcare systems will still have instances of malpractice.)

The VA has a process for filing claims. It begins with an administrative process—the Excel spreadsheet represents these administrative claims. Complainants can choose to go to federal court with a lawsuit if the administrative process doesn’t yield a satisfactory result in their view.

The data provided has details on over 12,000 claims against the VA from 1989 to November 2008, although the data appears largely incomplete for the first several years. Not all of the claims are medical malpractice-related, but several thousand are. There are fields for the VA facility involved, the date the claim was received, the date of the last tort status (where the claim is in the administrative process), the date of that status, alleged negligence descriptions (none exist for non-medical malpractice tort cases), and amount paid out, if any. The spreadsheet is over two years old, so the latest tort status field may be out-of-date for many of these claims.